|
CENSORSHIP IN THE CITIZEN |
|
|
Thank you for printing my letter regarding the Private/Public Partnership deal to build the new Gloucestershire Royal Hospital buildings (3/12/04). I was surprised that you altered the wording to remove references to the Green Party. Do you consider the two or three Green Party letters, that you kindly print each week, are too many? I hope not, because there seems to be very little debate or questioning on a number of very serious issues by the other political parties.
The Private/Public Partnership deals are just one example. Repeated independent reports criticise these funding schemes saying they are more costly for the taxpayer, often provide poorer services and make large profits for the companies involved. There are alternatives to this creeping privatisation of our public services, but it seems Greens are now the only ones prepared to argue for them.
There is now little difference between the three parties on key issues like globalisation, road building and aviation. They completely fail to understand the revolution we need in our production and consumption patterns, in our politics and in how we measure success, if we are to meet the challenge of climate change.
The Citizen can be proud of the range of opinions it covers, but denying information about where the Green Party stands on a particular issue will not help bring about the political changes we need; particularly when Greens are often the only voice offering an alternative to the current way we do politics.
Philip Booth, Press Officer, Gloucestershire Green Party.
Just to update you; Ian Mean, The Citizen's editor has telephoned me and apologised for the editing - a sub-editor has been "instructed not to do that again". The reason was that two Green Party letters in one day was seen as too many. He agreed it was "not on" to actually alter the contents of a letter. Philip
|
Home 
News 
Green New Deal Report 